Dear Editor:

It was with some amusement that I read the recent set of letters to the editor of the Union-Tribune equating the Gay & Lesbian community’s boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt with a form of bullying and terrorism. One letter went so far as to suggest that the founding fathers of the United States never had an economic boycott in mind when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

I say “amusement” because anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American history knows that our existence as a nation is inexorably tied to the concept of a boycott, as well as making the voices of dissent heard loud and clear. In fact, we exist as a nation primarily because of the concepts of dissent and economic boycotts.

In 1763, after the British and Americans were victorious against the French and Indians – led in part, ironically, by a loyal and patriotic British colonial citizen named George Washington – King George III and Parliament changed their view of the American colonies from being overseas British citizens to nothing more than a new source of revenue. When the colonists protested against “taxation without representation”, they were told they had no right to do so. They then fought back with the most effective weapon they had – an economic boycott of most British-made goods. The British responded to the boycotts by passing more and more freedom-restrictive legislation, such as the Tea Act, the Stamp Act, and the Intolerable or Coercive Acts. Ironically, Britain did not learn until too late that their every response to the economic boycott made life increasingly more difficult for the average American, swaying public opinion finally to the point where all thirteen colonies finally agreed on a “Unanimous Declaration of the united States Of America”.

The power of the economic boycott was again demonstrated in the 1950’s, beginning with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Non-violent protests, coupled with the demonstration of the power of the pocketbook, led to the end of blatantly unconstitutional practices such as segregation based on race. I dare say that no one would have told Rosa Parks in later years that she was wrong for hurting the bus company economically and that she should have waited until the entire population had a chance to vote on whether she and “her kind” should sit in the back of the bus until such time as a majority of the voting public decided it was time to extend full Constitutional rights to all citizens.

It is sadly ironic that when groups like Focus On The Family attempt a boycott against companies such as Disney or Ford because of their marketing to the Gay & Lesbian market, there are no calls for them to be silenced, yet when the same situation occurs in reverse – as is now the case with the Lesbian & Gay community boycotting a hotel run by a man who gives large sums of money to a ballot proposition that would permanently define us as second-class citizens – we somehow are personally attacking the man, and calls for vilification and shame upon our community for such an act - as well as the claims of being unpatriotic - are made.

We are all free Americans, and as such, we all have the right to boycott – and call for others to boycott – any business we consider acting in either an unfair manner or one that threatens our fundamental Constitutional rights. The Gay & Lesbian community is not a threat, un-American, or unpatriotic. We are acting as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other great patriots have done by exercising our rights as free Americans to engage in the most patriotic of all acts of defiance – an economic boycott.

I further call upon all responsible journalists and editorial boards to remember that dissent is NEVER unpatriotic - only denying the rights of dissent and disagreement is. We must remember that sometimes even within our own community, claims that “dissenting from this opinion is unpatriotic and is hurtful to our community” is not only wrong, it is immoral and un-American.

Scott E. Grant